Archive for the ‘Separate Maintenance/Alimony Considered by Court of Appeals’ Category

Recently the Rankin County Chancery Court was appealed on a claim by a wife for separate maintenance which is also considered separate alimony. The claims of the wife include the issue of her being entitled to support outside of child support, which would be considered alimony or temporary separate maintenance. The Rankin County Chancery Court heard a case in Spotswood v. Spotswood wherein the court was asked to consider a claim that the husband was required to reimburse the wife for insurance premiums that she paid through her employment and that she would also request payments for the mortgage of the marital home that the husband and wife owned jointly. The Rankin County Chancery Court determined that the husband reimburse the wife for those insurance premiums as well as pay half of mortgage payments for the marital home, although the husband had departed the marital home. The husband argued that the chancery court made an error in ordering him to make payments on the marital home as well as the insurance payments and essentially granted the wife’s request for separate maintenance or alimony even though the court specifically found that the wife was not entitled to the payment for separate maintenance or alimony. The Court of Appeals determined, after reviewing the entire record, that if the lower court had found that the award of separate maintenance or alimony is not warranted then the court cannot order one spouse, in this case the husband, to undertake obligations for the benefit of the other spouse, in this case the wife. Essentially the Court of Appeals was presented with a question that has been litigated in Chancery Courts around the state of Mississippi for decades. The Court of Appeals resolved a solitary issue here and found that the wife was not entitled to separate alimony or maintenance because the court of Rankin County determined that she was not entitled to the same. The court, in essence, determined that the husband was not required to make the payment for the mortgage of the home or insurance, as the Rankin County Court had previously adjudicated. Therefore the Court of Appeals reversed and rendered the decision back to Rankin County Chancery Court in order to have them make a determination of the issues aside from the decision that was made; that the husband could not be required to make payments outside of the scope of alimony even if they were in the guise of insurance or mortgage payments after the determination had already been made that separate alimony or maintenance during the parties’ separation was denied.

If you need assistance with a separate maintenance or alimony issue, contact The Law Office of Matthew Poole, and we are best able to provide you with the assistance and advice in order to bring your case to a fair conclusion.